Help desk
< October 14	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

October 15[edit]

Emma Eckstein[edit]

Jeffrey Masson in his assault on Freud's abandonment of the seduction theory makes much of Eckstein's role, linking Freud's "abandonment" of her position with respect to the Fliess surgery to his "abandonment" of her evidence for the paternal etiology of neurosis: for 'the idea – which even Masson concedes is crazy – that...all neurotic patients had been sexually abused'.[21]

I would like to change this to reflect my views, and would suggest this:

Jeffrey Masson in his book The Assault on Truth: Freud's Abandonment of the Seduction Theory, makes much of Eckstein's role. He believes that Freud was heavily influenced by Emma Eckstein (who actually was the first person to practice psychoanalysis after Freud, under his supervision), and the fact that she reported sexual abuse memories in her patients encouraged Freud to believe he had been correct to think of sexual abuse as playing a major role in the origin of neurosis. For a time he (and presumably Emma Eckstein as well) believed that all neurotic patients had been sexually abused. This is almost certainly not the case, but the role of sexual abuse (and other forms of childhood trauma) in most cases of adult happiness cannot be denied. Masson believes that the disastrous operation on Emma Eckstein by Fliess discouraged Freud from continuing to work and learn from her. Her role in the creation of psychoanalysis has never been properly acknowledged.

Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey Masson (talk • contribs) 00:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jeffrey Masson:. The appropriate place to propose changes to an article (in this case that of Emma Eckstein) is on that article's Talk page.

However, you raise a large red flag with your wording "I would like to change this to reflect my views." Wikipedia should only contain text based directly on (though not copying word-for-word, except for short, attributed quotes) Reliable sources that are cited to support it. Your own "views" (just like mine, or anyone else's) are not appropriate unless they have appeared in a published reliable source, and in such a case you yourself should not add such material, but rather suggest on the Talk page that someone else might consider doing so.

The text you have reproduced from the article above is cited to a (presumably reliable) source written by a third party: if it misrepresents that source it should be amended appropriately or removed, but otherwise you should not remove cited material. If you disagree with the material you are free to add and cite material from other reliable sources that presents an alternative scholarly viewpoint (or propose them for such addition if they are your own work), but Wikipedia is not the venue to continue academic disagreements or present previously unpublished original material. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.102.65 (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 3 references and some text from a wikipage[edit]

Hi, The person of the page has requested me to delete the 44,50,51 references link and text related these links, The page is "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Greenfield,_Baroness_Greenfield" Can I remove it? please inform me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gain334989 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gain334989:Editors such as yourself are supposed to make decisions like this by discussion on the article's talk page to reach consensus. If there is a consensus, then remove the material or suggest that the other editor do so. You do not need permission from the help desk. -Arch dude (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gain334989: Oops, I now see that the request is from the subject of the page. No, we do not remove reliably sources material from an article at the requiest of the subject. However, we are sensitive to poorly-sourced material or unreliable sources: see our policy at WP:BLP. If you agree that the sources do nt meet the extra rigour required for contentious material in a Biography, then remove it: otherwise not. -Arch dude (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those look like rock-solid sources. Do not remove this material without some serious discussion on the talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed four sources, including the three mentioned above, and the text related to the same. All of these were primary in nature and did not adhere to wp:npov. Further discussions on the validity of these sources may be continued on the article's talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 08:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social Media as Sources[edit]

Hello, my revision to a Wikipedia biography page on Noelle Stevenson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noelle_Stevenson) was reverted as a result of, allegedly, my having used both Facebook and Twitter as sources. However, the specific Facebook and Twitter URLs provided were for the public Facebook and Twitter profiles of the persons whose (relevant) quotes were being referenced, including the SUBJECT of the bio page (Stevenson) whose OWN quotes were referenced and which do not appear in any other media. How does one properly cite a source for quotes attributable to the subject of a Wikipedia biography entry if those quotes are ONLY AVAILABLE on their social media profile?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeverseau (talk • contribs) 06:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eeverseau. Well, you did use FB and twitter as sources.[1] Anyway, per WP:ABOUTSELF etc, if social media/whatever is the only source for something, we don't include it, unless possibly if it is something very uncontroversial about the subject themselves. Stuff like "which has been controversial" and "Stevenson has been outspoken in her defense of the new series on social media" should never be sourced to social media on WP, someone else must have noted it and bothered to write about it. When you have found non-social media sources, consider other stuff like WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't, take a look at WP:RELIABLE SOURCES for our guideline on what sources can be used where. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång here. Saying from a person's tweet that they have been outspoken in [their] defense of the new series on social media, claiming sexism, chauvinism, bigotry, racism, and prejudice are motivating the show's critics is your interpretation of the various tweets, and should not go on Wikipedia because it is original research; but that would have been the same if you had cited a NYT op-ed from that person. The problem is primary vs secondary source, not the quality of the starting source. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not wrong, but I was thinking more an NYT article that said "Stevenson has been outspoken in her defense of the new series on social media". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism[edit]

I don't know where I should mention this, so maybe someone here knows. I just opened Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language and it has a vandal's message scrawled on it. It cannot be removed by editing. 09:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Stephen G. Brown: Thanks for noticing. The vandalism was removed with this edit. Eagleash (talk) 09:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was some other vandalism (same content), not directly to the RefDesk but appearing on all of the desks, which has now been removed. DuncanHill (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble with image[edit]

Having trouble uploading my headshot for Steve Dean. I uploaded the jpg and it showed up in the preview, then was white in the thumbnail.

What do I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydauenhauer (talk • contribs) 13:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaydauenhauer: Hello, it is not clear exactly what it is you are referring to. I cannot see from your recent edits that you attempted to add an image to the article. Please can you give the volunteers here a little more information. When you say 'upload', where to?

Please note that punctuation goes before any references; I.e. at the end of the sentence or phrase but before the <ref> tag. Please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you. I will leave some helpful links at your talk page. Eagleash (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: I have tried to upload this image twice, File:Stephen Dean.jpg, File:Stephen O. Dean.tif. You can see that nothing shows up. What am I doing wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydauenhauer (talk • contribs) 15:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've uploaded the images to Commons, but you haven't tried to call the image up in the enwiki article. See Help:Pictures for advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David; I have placed the image at the page and left a message at Jaydauenhauer's TP. Eagleash (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: @David Biddulph: Thank you for your help. However, I am still seeing only white space for the image. Do you see the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydauenhauer (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You keep forgetting to sign your messages. No, the image displays happily for me, & doubtless for Eagleash too. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaydauenhauer: Yes, displays OK for me. If you are on a mobile device, try scrolling right the way down and selecting 'desktop'. BTW 'pings' don't work if you don't sign your posts. Eagleash (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing problem at "Pope Benedict XVI"[edit]

Hi, why exactly is there such a big whitespace (ugly!) bewtween the section heading Pre-papal career and the sub-section heading Academic career: 1951–1977 below?--Neufund (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neufund: The {{Ordination}} template was generating a blank line. Does it look OK now? -- John of Reading (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@John of Reading: Perfect! Thank you so much for your quick support! Best wishes--Neufund (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What adverts or promotions can we put on our Wikipedia page?[edit]

Hi

We have just setup a new wikipedia account.

What type of advertising or website links are we allowed to add to our Wikipedia page?

We have a press releases article that was published by the Guardian newspaper, how do we add that if it’s possible?

Regards Mike Mumford Www.mumfordbooks.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumfordbooks-guides (talk • contribs) 15:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to use Wikipedia for advertising at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an advertising platform. If you want to advertise there are plenty of other platforms for you to do that on. ~ GB fan 15:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mumfordbooks-guides:You have made several (unfortunately very common) errors. Sorry. We have user pages, and we have articles. Each user has a name, and must be a unique individual, not a group. You will need to change your user name: see (WP:USERNAME). We only have articles for subject that are notable, by our definition, not yours. for organizations, see WP:NCORP. Yours probably does not qualify. If your organization does qualify, The article must not be edited directly by you (see WP:COI) but we will accept suggestions or a proposed article. If you are compensated by an organization for your work on Wikipedia (e.g., you are an employee), you must declare this to comply with our terms of use. See WP:PAID. We have these rules for a reason: Think about what you want as a reader of other articles, not as the employee of your company. -Arch dude (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice request: are these reliable sources toward the notability of this film?[edit]

Hi guys, with a view to creating a page for the argentinian film "Resurrection" by Gonzalo Calzada, may I offer the links below toward establishing if -in your expert view- notability and reliability criteria are met in this case?

1. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrecci%C3%B3n_(pel%C3%ADcula_de_2016)

2. http://midacc.org/en/peliculas/resurreccion-de-gonzalo-calzada/

3. http://www.bloodygoodhorror.com/bgh/reviews/resurrection-2016

4. https://letterboxd.com/film/resurrection-2016/

5. https://theuumlaut.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/review-resurrection-resurreccion/

Your help with this will be greatly appreciated. Neuralia (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neuralia: Before answering, since my eyes hurt from looking your formatting of the above, let me point you to Help:List: numbered lists are obtained by indenting by hashes (#). Onto the question: you might also want to look at our criteria for films.

You probably meant es:Resurrección (película de 2016), not the general page about resurrection. Not a good source for any kind of information: see WP:CIRCULAR. Use the sources from within instead. If you want to translate large portions of the content, read how to take care of licensing.
midaccseems to be an event organized by an association of film directors. Your links points to a short plot and director bio because the film is part of the event; that short plot/bio in itself is WP:ROUTINE coverage. However being selected for the event might be evidence of notability, depending how prominent that event is (from what I can tell, not much, but I am not a Spanish speaker).
I cannot access it right now, but assuming it is a review from a specialized site, it probably has little weight. Everybody and everything is famous in their own little niche, so we tend to require more mainstream coverage - mainstream press newspapers mean more than cinema newspapers which mean more than Spanish-speaking cinema newspapers etc.
Not a good source: site content lists only routine details (date, cast, duration, etc.) and reviews are user-generated content.
Almost the same as 4: blogs are usually not reliable sources, unless the blogger is extremely famous (and even so we rarely base controversial content off one single person's view).

Your sources look weak to my eyes. However this source from the es article looks decent (though I do not know how reliable the site is). I do not think one is enough though. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan:Thanks for your kind advice, you say one is not enough, how about adding these other two links also in spanish.

Do they add sufficient notability/reliability to the case? Could they not object if the main reliable sources are not in English? Thanks once again.Neuralia (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Functional Hypothalamic Amenorrhea page requirements[edit]

I am a college student and wish to use my capstone project to make a page specifically for Functional Hypothalamic Amenorrhea (FHA), which currently has no link on the page for Amenorrhea. Alternatively, I would update the "low body weight" section on the Amenorrhea page with more information about physiological causes and hormonal signaling pathways. Before I submit my proposal to the university, are there any restrictions or important information I should know that would prevent me from editing/creating this content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackp97 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackp97: I can't see any problem at all with you contributing to this; indeed, this is exactly what Wikipedia exists for, to gather the contributions of knowledgeable editors who can summarize the information available from the world's reliable secondary sources. To get you started, you might want to read WP:PILLARS for a top-level guide to Wikipedia's content policies. You might also want to read WP:MEDRS for the slightly higher bar we place on sources for contributions on medical articles. I have made a stub article for this at Functional hypothalamic amenorrhea to help start you off: I look forward to your contributions. -- The Anome (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackp97: You may wish to discuss this in advance with your advisor. We want this material, but you need to ensure that it is not flagged as plagiarism when it subsequently appears in your college work. -Arch dude (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading photos of family members[edit]

Hi,

I'd like to upload a photo of my family member who has recently passed away. It's a passport photo taken few years ago. Please let me know if I can I publish this photo from the copyright perspective? Thanks! Here is the page I'm referring to: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michał_Nadachowski — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukasz Dolowy (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukasz Dolowy: You may upload a picture if its copyright belongs to you, AND if it is suitable for inclusion in a article on Wikipedia. Is this person notable enough (see WP:N) for an article ? Make sure before you start such an article: it's a fairly high threshold. Failure to establish notability by our definition, not yours, will result in the article's deletion, which is frustrating for everybody. Alternatively, would the picture enhance an existing article? In either case, we can use it if you own the copyright. The copyright for a passport photo almost certainly belongs to the subject. This in not true for most photographs, whose copyright belongs to the photographer. If that person is deceased, it passes with the estate. If you ended up with it, I think it's reasonable for you to assert ownership of the copyright unless the estate is being litigated or something.By uploading, you will be licensing it to anyone, for any purpose. Make sure that you want to do that. -Arch dude (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lukasz Dolowy: what Arch Dude says is true for the English Wikipedia, but each language version is run as a separate project, with its own rules. You must ask at the Polish Wikipedia about the rules they enforce over there. Rojomoke (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that if the image is uploaded to Commons they have a tag for inherited images Commons:Template:PD-heirs MilborneOne (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But of course that template is for the heirs of the copyright holder, not necessarily the heirs of the subject. As the earlier reply pointed out, it is important to understand whether the copyright belonged to the subject or to the photographer. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina[edit]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I was utterly horrified about a complete fabrication of the above page. There are simply no Turks in Bosnia only victims of their oppression and forced indoctrination. Bosnia is an independent country that was occupied by Turks for over 300 years in a very savage fashion. Turks have had a massive contribution in the recent murder through their agent Izetbegovic, which again has resulted in horrific civil war. This page clearly shows Turkish aspiration for innovation of Bosnia and it is extremely sensitive and infuriating. Please delete this page completely and ensure that the person who has created it does not create another similar page.

Kind regards,

IdaKulin — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdaKulin (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IdaKulin:Please discuss article contents on the article's talk page. The article has references. If you dispute their reliability, discuss it on the talk page. If you have reliably-sourced (WP:RS) additional information to add to the article, you are free to add it even if it contradicts information in the article. Do not remove existing information that is referenced. -Arch dude (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish savagery and murder of 300 years will have an extremely long list of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdaKulin (talk • contribs) 17:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but there is nothing to discuss about this article when everything is false. The article must be deleted completely. Who do I discuss anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdaKulin (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IdaKulin: It is not the job of the help desk, or of any other editor, to find and document references. You must add them to a discussion on the talk page. If you wish to propose the article's deletion, you still must start on the talk page. You will need to make a cogent and well-referenced argument for deletion. After such a discussion, you can then propose a deletion via WP:AFD, but if you skip the discussion step, your proposal will be declined. -Arch dude (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Connecting two userpages in different language Wikidpedias[edit]

Hi,

I use Wikipedia and Vicipéid (the Irish language version of Wikipedia). I have a user page on each detailing the threads I have started and a couple of other things. All of the new articles I have started on both Wikipedias are linked to one another to date as they are mostly on the same topics or organisations. However I cannot- and I have been trying for ages to find out- find out how to link my Userpage on Wikpedia to my Userpage on Vicipéid, so that other people looking at my Userpages can link to to the other one if they want? Could somebody please tell me how to do it?

Regards,

Darren J. Prior (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darren J. Prior: Use interwiki link syntax. Your user page at Vicipéid is ga:User:Darren J. Prior. Just use that as a link, with our without piped text as you see fit. From there, you can link back to en:User:Darren J. Prior. -Arch dude (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I did not realize the leading colon would not display. The actual link looks like this: [[:ga:User:Darren J. Prior]]. -Arch dude (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The more boring but detailed answer is that Wikipedia pages across languages and projects are linked together via Wikidata, but an editor usually does not meet Wikidata's standards for notability, and so you cannot link your user pages together in this way. GMG ^talk 19:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have it working on both now guys- thanks a million! Regards, Darren J. Prior (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?[edit]

I would like to delete a section about "herd behavior" in the Marketing article on the basis that it is a copyright violation. I believe that the content is a straight cut and paste from a book, Sales Management: Keys to Effective Sales By PUNDRIK MISHRA (2009), p. 40. As only a short section of a longer article is involved, a revdelete copyvio tag appears to be the most appropriate way to proceed. However the copyvio instructions call for the "number of the first (oldest) revision to be deleted" and the "number of the last (newest) revision to be deleted (optional)" and I have been unable to obtain this information due to problems with Wikiblame. When I search the article's prior history for details of the addition of "herd" or other key words from the relevant passage, the system appears to get itself into an infinite loop and only returns the result that the content was "already present" on the dates of "2 August, 2017" and "18 February, 2017" (which are repeated endlessly), but does not proceed beyond these dates. Even if I let it search for half a day, it simply returns lengthy lists of these two dates and nothing else. I have tried several times over the past few weeks to get a result from the prior search function, all to no avail. I would appreciate some advice on how to proceed. BronHiggs (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BronHiggs: When did you first remove the suspected violation? Tera TIX 22:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Teratix I haven't removed it because I am unable to comply with the instructions in the revdelete template. I think that it should be removed as it is a fairly clear copyvio. Perhaps I did not explain clearly the reasons for this - but I am unable to determine when the content was added due to issues getting Wikiblame to work properly. BronHiggs (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Wikiblame is presumably because a number of years of history were hidden because of an earlier copyvio. You need to start the Wikiblame search from before this gap in the history. If you do that you'll find that the words to which you refer were added in this edit in December 2006. If I understand correctly, you would be asking for a revdelete of nearly 12 years of history. You probably need advice from the copyvio experts. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, only four years, because the history between 2009 and 2017 is already revdelled, as you said. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. It looks like it could actually be a form of reverse plagiarism because the book was published in 2009 and the content in question was apparently added in 2006. Those dates suggest that the author of the book copied from the Wikipedia article - and it wouldn't be the first time that sort of thing has happened! Thanks anyway - problem solved and a good explanation for why I was suddenly experiencing difficulties with Wikiblame. BronHiggs (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox problem[edit]

Hi, how can one improve the formatting of the line "Metro(1 January 2012)" in the Copenhagen infobox?--Neufund (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neufund: There is no infobox in Copenhagen Consensus, and "Metro" or "January 2012" does not occur in the page. After some searching I guess you mean Copenhagen. I inserted a space with {{sp}}.[2] Normal spaces are stripped from the start and end of named template parameters. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Yes, thanks a lot, that's exactly what I meant! I must have slipped when selecting the link from the autocomplete. Best wishes--Neufund (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign language links:to what degree are they valid to support notability/reliability of a non-English film?[edit]

Dear people, my reliable sources to support the creation of a foreign-film page are no in English but in Spanish, is that Ok to proceed? Neuralia (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neuralia. Foreign language sources are acceptable but if English sources are available, they are preferred. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sources reliable toward the notability of this spanish film?[edit]

Dear people, how do you appraise the reliability of these sources toward establishing the notability of a spanish film with a view to creating the corresponding page?

Although existing, sources in English for the subject have been considered "suboptimal". The corresponding page in the Spanish Wikipedia may be reached at https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrecci%C3%B3n_(pel%C3%ADcula_de_2016) Thanks. Neuralia (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to answer a question on your Talk?[edit]

Someone has asked me a question using their Talk. How do I answer it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliallen2 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aliallen2: Most folks simply answer the question where it was asked, with an indentation (a leading colon), and sign the answer with four tildes (~~~~). Some folks prefer to answer in a new section on their own talk page (why? I don't know) with a "ping" back to the original user like this: {{ping|otherusers name}}. -Arch dude (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]